No laughs when KFC squeezes out Phua Chu Kang

It is well-known by now that advertising revenue is the life blood of commercial TV (and other media) in a capitalist economy. We have thus come to accept and put up grudgingly with commercials on TV. A major problem is that the presentation of commercials on free-to-air TV stations seems to be getting increasingly out of hand and in many cases has been inappropriate in its intrusiveness.

We know that TV broadcasters have to appease advertisers, who are always looking for ways to get viewers to watch their commercials instead of doing something else when the ads come on–like going to the bathroom, getting something to drink from the fridge, even making a quick phone call. Some people have become so conditioned by commercial breaks that they even plan to perform a specific task during a commercial break. For example, taking a shower, as some of the breaks can be as long as five minutes at a time.

As though the long commercial breaks are not annoying enough, the way commercials pop up abruptly on TV in recent years is also irritating.

To begin with, certain TV stations interrupt a programme by going straight to the commercials. There is nothing to separate the programmes from the ads. The worst culprits are TV2 and TV3. (ntv7 is on the right track with visuals separating them like the one showing a butterfly flying out of a TV although the station sometimes has strayed from this policy.) Such an abrupt commercial interruption is not only tacky but also shows that TV stations are paying more attention to what the advertisers want at the expense of their viewers. This is unlike most countries, including those in Southeast Asia, that make clear the programme-commercial separation so as to serve advertisers and viewers equitably.

In the past year or two, technological advancement has allowed a TV signal to carry more than one set of information, a phenomenon sometimes called piggybacking. It has led to, for example, “news crawlers” or headline news strips that stream from right to left across the TV screen at the bottom.

TV stations and advertisers have quickly taken advantage of the new development. And so, while you are watching your favourite episode of, say, “Phua Chu Kang”, up pops a commercial for KFC from the bottom of the screen. It could occupy as much as a quarter of the screen so that the programme “PCK” is squeezed or “flattened” within the remaining screen space.

More and more advertisers appeared drawn to this way of advertising on TV for the obvious reason: unlike during the traditional commercial breaks, which viewers can tune out or escape from, the pop-up commercial now shares the same screen as the programme so that viewers cannot avoid it. True, this new way of commercial insertion does not come with sound and has limited screen space. But such ads are probably aimed at registering into the viewers’ subconscious mind.

Who knows, advertisers may one day make TV stations an offer they cannot refuse. They can then have a larger screen space vis-a-vis “Phua Chu Kang”. We also dread to think that advertisers may even insist on including a quick voice over. And so, when the characters on “PCK” are having a quiet moment, up pops a commercial for KFC with a quick voice-over of “Yummy!”

Not likely?

Well, consider a couple of even more intrusive ways of commercial insertions to have surfaced lately. One is a variation of the insertion from below. It takes place on one side of the screen from top to bottom. For example, an ice cream company in its “durian runtuh” advertising campaign a few weeks ago ran a competition with electronic products as prizes. In one of its commercials, a TV set, camera, DVD player, etc could be seen “raining” down from top to bottom on the right side of the screen with the programme running.

As though that is not blatantly intrusive or distracting enough, another insertion involves the promotion of Euro 2004 on TV3 accompanied by its sponsor Maxis. It takes up far less screen space as the programme because it features only a small poster-like depiction of the tournament.

However, whenever it was inserted on the top left corner of the screen while “Phua Chu Kang” is on, it would stay for a few seconds at a time. And it could be blocking out Phua Chu Kang’s head so that whatever facial reaction to the other characters he demonstrated, it obviously could not be seen. This was precisely what happened last Sunday on “PCK”. But TV3 did not appear to be bothered as it continued with the insertion throughout the show.

TV stations and advertisers thus seem to be increasingly abusing the public’s acceptance of advertising as a vital part of the TV business. But is anyone watching so that the commercial imperative of the business is properly balanced by consideration for the viewers? If there is no rule or law to ensure the balance is observed, it is high time that one is drawn up. A rule instead of law is preferable because it is best that the government stays out of media regulation as much as possible. Unless the broadcasters flout the rules.